66 "the peace of Europe; faithful to the engagement which they "contracted by the collective note presented to the Porte by "their representatives at Constantinople, on the 27th of July, 1839: and desirous, moreover, to prevent the effusion " of blood, which would be occasioned by a continuance of "the hostilities which have recently broken out in Syria "between the authorities of the Pacha of Egypt and the "subjects of the Sultan; their said Majesties and his Highness the Sultan have resolved, for the aforesaid purposes, to conclude together a Convention " (h). 66 66 By the Treaty of the Dardanelles (July 10th, 1841) the five great European Powers admitted the exclusive authority of the Porte over these straits, and incorporated this principle of Law into the written Law (jus pacticium) of Europe (¿). This principle has been preserved by the recent Treaty of Berlin, 1878. The Treaty of Paris, 1856 (as has been mentioned in a former chapter), placed the independence and integrity of the Ottoman Empire under the guarantee of England, Austria, and France. But Russia in 1871 practically set at nought the Treaty of Paris, which was, however, in some degree patched up and restored by the Treaty of London, 1871; the Protocol to which stated, that the Powers recognised "that it is an essential principle of the Law of "Nations that none of them can liberate itself from the "engagements of a Treaty, nor modify the stipulations. "thereof, unless with the consent of the contracting parties "by means of an amicable understanding." Some of these Treaties, and the events which led to them, will be noticed more at length hereafter. But it is clear, even from this cursory notice, that the Porte must now be considered as subject, with only such exceptions as the reason of the thing may dictate, not only to the principles of general International Law, but to the particular provisions (h) Hertslet's Treaties, vol. v. p. 544. of the European Code (k). The Hatti-Sherif of 1856 relative to the Hierarchy of the Greek Church and non-Mussulman subjects generally, will be considered hereafter (1). The peculiar relations which subsist between the Porte and Egypt will be considered in the next chapter. (k) Speech of the Earl of Clarendon (Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs), in the House of Lords, April 1853, on the interference of the Continental Powers in the relations subsisting between the Porte and Montenegro. See also the Debates in both Houses of Parliament upon the subject of Russian intervention in Turkey on the ground of an alleged Religious Protectorate of the Greek Church.-Hansard's Parl. Deb. 1853; Koch, iv. 349. Vide post, chapter on "Intervention." I say this non obstante the opinion expressed by M. Guizot, Mém. vi. ch. xxxvii. pp. 257-8. (1) Ann. Reg. 1856; State Papers, 337. Vide post, "Intervention on Religious Grounds," §. ccccix. CHAPTER II. DIFFERENT KINDS OF STATES. LXIX. HAVING considered the general attributes and characteristics required by International Law for the constitution of a State, it becomes necessary to apply these tests to the different forms of States which are found to exist, in order to fix the position of each in the Commonwealth of Nations. This part of the subject appears to admit of the following principal division: First. One or more States under One Sovereign. Secondly. Several States under a Federal Union. LXX. I.-As to one or more States under one Sovereign. It is proposed to consider this first branch of the principal division under the following heads : 1. Single States, under one Sovereign. 2. Several States perpetually united (reali unione) under one Sovereign. 3. The peculiar case of Poland. 4. Several States temporarily united under one Sovereign (personali unione). 5. A State under the Protectorate of another, or of others, but retaining its International personality. 6. A State under such Protectorate so as to have forfeited its International personality.-The Ionian Islands. 7. The European Free Towns or Republics. 8. The peculiar case of Belgium. 9. The peculiar case of Greece. 10. States standing in a Feudal relation to other States.— The Turkish Provinces. 11. The peculiar case of Egypt. LXXI. First. With respect to a Single State, under One Sovereign, like Spain or Portugal as at present constituted, no doubt can be raised as to such a State being the proper subject of International Law. LXXII. Secondly.-Where several States, perpetually under one Sovereign (reali unione), have retained certain (a) rights and privileges as far as their International Relations are concerned, but have lost all separate and distinct existence as far as their External Relations are concerned, they are not, properly and strictly speaking, subjects of International Law-at least, they can only be so mediately and indirectly, and not directly and immediately. For instance, a State which entered into any negotiations with Hungary or Ireland as independent States (even while they possessed a separate legislature) would have been guilty of a gross violation of International Law towards Austria or Great Britain. LXXIII. Thirdly. The particular State of Poland requires a distinct and separate consideration. The various partitions of that unhappy country are not now under discussion; it is with the condition of Poland under the Treaty of Vienna, and the Russian manifesto of 1832, that we are at present concerned. The union established between Russia and Poland by the Congress of Vienna was of a wholly anomalous kind. By the first act of that Congress the Duchy of Warsaw, with the exception of certain districts, was united to the Russian Empire, and was irrevocably bound by its constitution to belong to the Emperor of Russia, and his heirs in all (a) Grotius, de J. B. et P. lib. i. c. iii. s. 21; lib. ii. c. ix. s. 9: :'Quod si quando uniantur duo populi non amittentur jura sed communicabuntur. Idemque censendum est de regnis quæ non fœdere, aut eo duntaxat quod regem communem habeant, sed vera unitate junguntur." Vattel, I. liv. i. c. i. Oppenheim, System des Völkerrechts, zweiter Theil, Kap. vi. s. 4. Wheaton, Eléments du Droit international, p. 20. Klüber, Europäisches Völkerrecht (ed. 1851), erster Theil, Kap. i. 8. 27. Heffter, Europ. Völkerrecht, s. 20, perpetuity. The Emperor undertook to confer on this State, which was to be under a separate and distinct government, such powers of internal administration as he might think fit. The Emperor was to take the title of King of Poland. The Poles, whether subjects of Austria, Prussia, or Russia, were to obtain representative institutions, regulated according to the manner which might seem expedient to the respective Governments. In conformity with these stipulations, the Emperor Alexander granted a constitutional charter to the Kingdom of Poland, November 15 (27), 1815. This charter declared that The Kingdom of Poland was united to Russia by its constitution—that the sovereign authority in Poland was to be exercised in conformity therewith-that the coronation of the King of Poland was to take place in the Polish capital, where he was bound to take an oath to observe the charter. Poland was to have a perpetual representation, composed of the King and the two chambers forming the Diet, in which body the power of legislation and taxation was to be vested. A distinct Polish army, coinage, military orders, were to be preserved in the kingdom. But in 1832, the Emperor Nicholas established what was called an organic statute for Poland, the principal features of which were, that the Kingdom of Poland was henceforth to be perpetually united to, and form an integral part of, the Russian Empire, the Polish Diet was to be abolished; the Polish army absorbed into the Russian; and the administration of Poland carried on under a Russian Council of State, called the Section for the Offices of Poland. The Governments of England and France protested against this act as a violation of the spirit, if not of the letter, of the Treaty of Vienna (b). It seems, however, impossible at the present time to consider Poland as retaining any of those characteristics which would entitle it to be considered as an independent (b) Annuaire historique, 1832. Documens historiques, p. 184. Wheaton's History, 433, 441. Wheaton, Elém. du Droit Inter. i. pp. 53–55. Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, vol. xiii. p. 1115. |